Lessons From Hungary’s Democratic Backsliding. Plus, What Makes a Resistance Movement Successful?

Hey, it's Micah.

If you've been enjoying the Divided Dial series as much as we have, come join us in New York on June 11th for a very cool, very low-key live show that I'll be doing with Katie Thornton.

We'll hear about the crazy lengths Katie went to to bring these stories to life.

And we'll talk about what our role is in keeping the public airwaves public.

The event is on June 11th in New York.

You can find more information at wnyc.org slash events and in the show notes for today's podcast.

Come and nerd out with us on all things radio.

It's going to be really fun.

The way it was kind of described to me was like if Fox News was basically every TV channel and the New York Post was like every newspaper.

From WNYC in New York, this is on the media.

I'm Michael Loewinger.

On this week's show, we're trying to answer the question: where is the U.S.

right now on the backsliding democracy scale?

We were wondering, like, is it fair to call US like an illiberal regime?

But then we were talking and we were thinking like oh but they are like deporting people for no reason.

Meanwhile an old academic study about what works to push back on autocratic regimes is a hot new meme on the resistance internet.

If 1% of the population participates in the peak of the movement, then the regime has a 50% chance of giving way and it gets better from there up to 3.5%.

No regime has survived a three and a half percent population resistance.

It's all coming up after this.

From WNYC in New York, this is on the media.

I'm Michael Owinger.

A few weeks ago, I got an email with an interview request that stopped me in my tracks.

What did it feel like for you to see your country turn into an illiberal regime?

And how do you manage to continue doing your job with integrity and courage?

This is Juana Philip.

I am a Romanian journalist.

The weird thing is, we were in the middle of putting together this episode, which is about the erosion of democracy in other countries around the world.

And I had just interviewed a Hungarian journalist to ask him for advice on how to approach our own backslide in the US.

And then all of a sudden, here was a Romanian journalist asking me for the very same advice.

For context, Romania was on the eve of an election in which a Trump-loving nationalist was maybe going to win the presidency.

In the end, he lost out to the pro-democracy, pro-EU candidate.

But we here at OTM were a bit rattled by the irony of her request.

What was your thinking about reaching out to an American journalist?

Because for a lot of time, there was this narrative of the U.S.

press as being, you know, a very high standard and the U.S.

democracy being the democracy we have to follow.

So, when

this started to crumble, it was

very

weird for us.

Yeah, I think

maybe the reason that your email caught me off guard is that I have this kind of ingrained American exceptionalism.

I don't know if that's the right word, but and then I guess just to hear from an unbiased outsider say, Yeah, you now live in an illiberal regime.

Honestly, it was just a little bit shocking.

It just felt like you were jumping to a conclusion that I wasn't ready to confront.

It's very funny in a way that you say that because we actually had a discussion in the newsroom when we were writing the questions.

Because we were wondering, like, is it fair to call U.S.

like an illiberal regime?

But then we were talking and we were thinking like, oh, but they are like deporting deporting people for no reason.

They are crescenting media in a way that is truly undemocratic.

If it would be other country, would we still have this discussion?

So where is the U.S.

right now on the democracy to autocracy spectrum?

Christina Pagel, a professor and mathematician at University College London, made a handy checklist and posted it to her substack.

She She categorized 464 things Donald Trump has done since returning to the White House and sorted them all into five sometimes overlapping categories of ways in which he's undermining democracy.

Category one, weakening democratic checks and balances.

Trump ordered a late-night purge of government watchdogs, firing at least a dozen inspectors.

Agencies have to submit draft legislation to the White House for review.

Category 2, weaponizing state power against personal enemies.

Trump is targeting law firms directly tied to prosecutors involved in cases that have been against him.

Category 3, undermining the rule of law.

The Justice Department ordering federal prosecutors to drop corruption charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams.

Category 4, controlling information.

Moving forward, the White House press pool will be determined by the White House press team.

And category 5, suppressing dissent.

One of the latest people to be detained by federal agents and threatened with deportation is a doctoral student at Tufts University.

Her supporters say she's being punished for an op-ed in her student paper.

You want to focus on elite universities because elite universities establish the cultural signals that then flow downward to the university sector as a whole.

That last voice is conservative activist Christopher Ruffo, who's led the charge against diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives at universities.

He took inspiration for some of his views from a visit to Hungary in 2023.

Actually, a lot of American conservatives have made a similar pilgrimage to learn the ways in which the democratically elected prime minister Viktor Orbán reordered Hungarian society to suit his right-wing populist agenda.

The New Yorker's Andrew Morantz also spent time in Budapest, and after Trump's inauguration and the raft of anti-democratic moves that followed, it became clear to him that the new administration had taken more than a few lessons from Orbán's playbook.

When you dig into how democratic backsliding often works, it's very rare that it's just an edict that goes out from the government that says, starting tomorrow, there will be no more democracy.

And so I think a lot of times when someone like Christopher Ruffo, who I think you could argue is the most influential activist of the last few years, goes to Hungary, a lot of what they see is a way of hollowing out democratic institutions from within without setting off people's alarm bells prematurely or without setting off people's alarm bells even maturely.

Yeah, you actually quote a Hungarian social scientist named Peter Krako who told you, quote, the way they do it here and the way they're starting to do it in your country as well, they don't need to use too much open violence against us.

The new way is cheaper, easier, looks nice on TV.

Oh, God.

When I read that, I was like.

And that's the first section of the piece.

Yeah, it's not great news because you can get away with a lot if you do it subtly without turning the heat up so fast that the proverbial frog jumps out of the water.

So Victor Orban was prime minister first from 1998 to 2002.

And at that time, he was a sort of center-right conservative who governed democratically.

Then he gets kicked out and he gives this famous speech where he says, the homeland can never be in opposition, meaning we've just lost an election, but in some sense, we haven't really lost because we are the people and the people can never actually be in opposition.

Then he comes back in 2010 and he's not into liberal democracy anymore.

And at that point, he starts referring to himself as an illiberal Democrat.

I think what Orban actually means by illiberal democracy is, we'll just keep the parts of democracy that I like because they keep me in power.

The parts of democracy that allow me to be elected, the parts of democracy that allow me to change the Constitution, that's all good stuff.

Yeah.

And another word for this is competitive authoritarianism.

You do still have elections.

That's what the competitive part means.

Yeah.

And let's dig into what you think Americans can learn from what's taken place in Hungary.

You visited the Budapest campus of Central European University, which opened in 1991 and was funded by George Soros, of all people, the final boss of right-wing conspiracy theories.

It was also widely respected and accredited in the United States.

CEU initially had the support of Orban and then quickly lost favor when he took his nationalist turn.

What did you see when you visited there in January?

CEU was founded right after the Soviet regime fell.

And George Soros at the time was one of the big funders and founders of the pro-democracy movements that were growing up in the ashes of the post-Soviet regime.

And actually one of the big pro-democracy student activists who George Soros was supporting at the time was Viktor Orban.

And CEU was seen as one of these pillars of a new open society that you would need in order to rebuild after all the repression that had gone on.

And then, after Orban took this hyper-nationalist, illiberal turn, he started to say, okay, well, we don't want all these free-thinking urban intellectuals.

That's really inconvenient for the regime.

Eventually, he passed a law that didn't mention CEU or George Soros in the law, but the effect of the law was that any country that had dual accreditation in Hungary and outside of Hungary had to jump through a bunch of new regulatory hoops that he created.

The overall effect was CEU can no longer give out degrees in Hungary.

And so what you have now is there's a building called CEU, Budapest, but it's kind of a hollowed-out shell of its former self.

I called it a Potemkin University.

You described this laminated sign dated months prior that was taped to a locked door that read, the PhD labs at the Budapest site will be closed.

You encountered a young guy on a computer who turned out to be working for a video editing startup and he was just renting an office in the building for a month.

It's literally there, but by any honest description, it's dead.

Like if you asked me, is there a CEU Budapest?

It would be hard for me to know how to answer that question, which is itself a kind of mind-bending thing.

You spoke with Ishvan Kiss, who is the director of a right-wing think tank funded by the Orban government called the Danube Institute.

How did he receive a progressive New Yorker writer from the United States?

What a lot of people will say on the right is I'm not anti-liberal.

I have classical liberal values.

Like I enjoy talking to people who disagree with me, and I don't like, you know, woke strictures on freedom of speech.

And so I think there's enough of a performance of those values that they enjoy talking to people they disagree with.

And I enjoy talking with them too.

I mean, we had a perfectly pleasant conversation.

But when I would say, like, come on, it's pretty clear that the Orban government is using its power in these ways that seem to be pushing the boundaries of legality.

Usually what the defenders of the government would say is, I don't even know what you're talking about.

I mean, we have these basically incommensurate views of reality.

What was something where you felt like you were speaking two different languages?

Well, part of it is that a lot of these people have convinced themselves that they're just sort of rectifying an imbalance that was perpetuated by the left.

And often in Hungary, people will say that, but they'll say it with regard to communism.

You know, we're not trying to stuff the courts full of our loyalists.

We're just trying to get rid of all those old communist judges that couldn't be trusted.

We're not trying to, you know, put the media under our thumb.

We're just trying to get rid of the old media that was left over from the communist regime, that sort of thing.

But you're a journalist.

So how do you know he's not just trying to manipulate you and kind of spread party messaging versus he actually lives within this reality and something outside of it is inconceivable?

Oh, I think it could be both.

But I do think that it's possible to have a worldview that is not pure incoherent parroting of state propaganda that says, look, this is what the Hungarian people wanted.

This is where we get to the paradox of illiberal democracy, which is Orban does win democratic elections.

And Trump did win at least one popular vote in a democratic election, this most recent one.

So you can make a very simple pro-illiberal democracy argument.

And it goes like this.

The people voted for this, so shut up.

Now, I don't find that argument persuasive, but I don't think it's incoherent.

I mean, you look at people like Victor Orban, people like Bukele in El Salvador, people like Modi in India, they're very, very popular.

And I think they've become popular by doing things that I would consider anti-democratic.

And some of that has to do with two different definitions of democracy that are kind of embedded in the same word.

There's one version of democracy that is just, did you win the election or not?

And according to that definition of democracy, It's like, why are we even having this conversation?

But according to the definition of democracy that has to do with things like the rule of law, things like the Republican with a small R balance of powers, things like you have to do what courts say when they tell you to do stuff, things like you can't just fill the whole government with your loyalists if the rules say you can't do that.

Doing those anti-democratic things, I think, is an abrogation of the rules, but it's not clear actually

what the remedy is when the two versions of democracy are in conflict with each other.

At least in the first hundred days, Trump is historically highly unpopular currently.

And yet similar behavior that we've seen in the Orban regime in Hungary is met with a different kind of popularity.

Why do you think it's worked well for him there?

Well, because he's a really good politician.

And he's actually in many ways very responsive to what people want.

He's always running polls.

He's always running these kind of informal plebiscites.

We kind of have this view of if you're a non-democratic leader, you just don't give a shit about public opinion and you don't take it into account.

But in the 21st century, at least, a lot of these leaders are very tapped into public opinion.

This is actually another problem with democracy that is sometimes called the tyranny of the majority, right?

In the Jim Crow South, southern states were anti-democratic.

terror regimes that were run by white supremacists that were democratically popular if you only counted white people.

Often if you give people people enough of what they want, either materially or spiritually or in terms of a kind of patriotic narrative, they'll overlook a lot of things.

This is true of Trump also.

If you give people something to believe in, like MAGA, and you give them a certain benefit of some kind, And then you say as an implicit part of the deal, I'm also going to do a little cronyism on the side and let Jared Kushner go do some real estate deals, that can kind of work as a tacit democratic bargain.

Coming up, more of my interview with Andrew Morantz, in which he describes the hollowed-out media in Hungary as if every TV channel was Fox News.

This is on the media.

On the Media is supported by hims and hers.

If you're someone who values choice in your money, your goals, and your future, then you know how frustrating traditional health care can be.

One-size-fits-all treatments, preset dosages, zero flexibility.

It's like trying to budget with a fixed expense you didn't even choose.

But now, there's another way, with HIMS and HERS.

HIMS and HERS is reimagining healthcare with you in mind.

They offer access to personalized care for weight loss, hair loss, sexual health, and mental health, because your goals, your biology, and your lifestyle are anything but average.

No membership fees, no surprise fees, just transparent pricing and real care that you can access from anywhere.

Feel like your best self thanks to quality, convenient care through HIMS and HERS.

Start your free online visit today at HIMS.com slash OTM.

That's H-I-M-S.com/slash OTM to find your personalized treatment options.

Not available everywhere.

Prescription products require provider consultation.

See website for full details, important safety information, and restrictions.

This week on the New Yorker Radio Hour, Anna Winter on the changing of the guard at Vogue.

Well, I think fashion is always important.

It's a question of self-expression and forgive me, David, but how boring would it be if everybody was just wearing a dark suit and a white shirt all the time?

Anna Wintour joins me next time on the New Yorker Radio Hour from WNYC Studios.

Listen wherever you get your podcasts.

This is on the media.

I'm Michael Loewinger.

I've been talking to New Yorker staff writer Andrew Morantz about his article titled, Is It Happening Here?

About the State of Civil Society in Hungary.

When it comes to the media, what Andrew learned is that the press doesn't just keel over one day and die.

It's extinguished slowly.

Andrew spoke to Gabor Mikloshi, a veteran investigative journalist who witnessed the gradual death of the Hungarian media firsthand.

So he worked at Index, which was one of the top news sites in the country, independent, you know, kind of paper of record.

And it was bought by a company that I think was controlled by a kind of Orban loyalist.

Ownership changed hands, and he was worried about editorial interference.

But then at first, the editorial interference didn't really show up.

Or he thought maybe it showed up, like there was a headline that got changed at the last minute, and no one would really tell him why.

But there was no real bright line.

for a long, long, long time.

And then eventually, when the bright lines piled up and piled up, he left.

The way it was kind of described to me was like if Fox News was basically every TV channel and the New York Post was like every newspaper.

And he now works at Partisan, which is really kind of the most important independent media outlet in the country.

It's mostly a YouTube channel.

And I spent some time at the studios of Partisan.

And again, there's all this ambiguity, right?

It's sort of like the CEU thing.

People would tell me, oh, the Hungarian media is cooked.

It's done for.

And then I show up in Budapest and Partisan is this really popular YouTube channel.

It's operating openly.

The government knows about it.

Everyone knows about it.

You know, I thought, oh, this is some dissident, scrappy media enterprise.

I'll have to like go in secret to some person who can connect me over Signal to someone who's in exile in

Portugal somewhere.

But no, I mean, the head of Partisan, the founder of it, Martin Guyas, just met me in the parking lot and said, hey, welcome to Partisan.

And then we walked upstairs upstairs into the control room and I watched them film an interview with Ben Rhodes.

So again, it's like all this kind of ambiguity and plausible deniability all the way down.

And when I would ask someone like Martin Gulyash, okay, you run this popular YouTube channel that is dissident media that is giving a platform to enemies of the regime.

Why doesn't the regime just shut you down?

He was like, well, I don't know.

How would they do that?

He's a really interesting character.

He seems like somebody who kind of crab walked into a political dissident pundit role.

How did he get into this line of work?

Martin started as a kind of avant-garde theater director and then started getting worried because of the cuts to arts programs that the state was doing at the time.

And from there he got more and more involved in activism.

When they went after CEU, he led some protests when they went after other universities.

At one point he went over to the presidential palace and tried to throw a bucket of paint on the palace and completely failed.

And they got arrested before he could even throw the paint.

I was arrested for 72 hours.

This is Martin Gulyash, founder of Partisan.

I spoke to him a couple of weeks ago.

And I was sentenced to 300 hours community work, which was one of the best things.

which happened to me by the state because I spent the 300 hours helping people who are living on the streets, providing them blankets, cup of tea, or some kind words.

And I met with so many incredible lives who are right now forced to live on the street.

So it reinforced my belief that that type of journalism, that type of an activism is absolutely necessary in this country.

I was trying to learn more about your arrest and the trial.

And the first thing that came up on Google was this English language press release on a website called About Hungary, which seems to be run by the Orban regime.

It said, quote, critics noted that Gulyas is notorious for trying to promote his own image and failing YouTube show, arranging outrageous public stunts to attract press attention.

I see you smiling.

I'm assuming you've gotten pretty used to these types of attacks.

Absolutely.

I love this type of attacks.

It's a kind of badge of honor, which we are proud to wear.

Of course, your YouTube channel is not failing.

It's been quite successful, and it's evolved a lot over the years.

Give me some examples of the most important stories that you've covered or reported.

The leader of the opposition right now, who is Peter Major, and who is right now running the most successful opposition party in the country, this is the first time since 2010 when a single party showing a significant lead against Orban.

So this guy appeared in our channel for the first time in Hungary.

When he accepted the interview request from me, he was absolutely unknown for the wider public.

The publication of the show, it was a live stream.

It was at the same time when Beyoncé just published her latest video clip, and we were head to head in the first 24 hours.

Of course, after 24 hours, Beyoncé surpassed us, unfortunately.

Maybe an interview with her would surpass that.

I would be open to that.

So, if anyone can, please let her know that I would love, I would really love to talk to her.

She's the greatest.

Well, I'll let her know.

Okay, please, please, please text her.

What we've heard in the United States is that the independent press in Hungary has been slowly eroded.

Can you describe for me how did that happen?

What do American journalists need to watch out for?

One thing we didn't make, and I think that's a failure of the entire Hungarian journalistic community, when they started to kick out journalists, for example, from the parliament, or ban certain type of journalists from the parliament, the entire community should have stood up and should have demonstrated or somehow say that no, all of us should be accepted or none of us should be there.

What you're describing is already happening.

We see the White House press corps being slowly replaced by right-wing influencers whose entire currency with their audience and with the Donald Trump presidency is repeating misinformation and government-approved talking points.

We've seen attempts to kick out the Associated Press for not capitulating on using certain kinds of language that the government wants, like calling the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America.

You know, this was grounds for cutting out one of America's oldest news organizations.

The erosion that you're describing is well underway.

I'm curious if there are other pieces of advice, things that you believe Hungarian journalists took too long to put a name to before it was too late.

Maybe it will sound strange, but I think it's very important, even in the most hostile times, to be as fair as possible to the Trump administration.

Be as fair as possible.

Yes.

Absolutely.

So try to regulate your anger, try to regulate all of your bad emotions and feelings.

So if you lose your temper, if you use your coolness, if you use your professionality, there will be a lot of bad mouthing against you and against other journalists.

You have to focus on the rational part of the policymaking of the Trump administration.

And I think in the longer term, it grants you a certain type of respect, even if they don't show it.

And I say this from experience, because we are absolutely openly critical of the government, but we are critical of the opposition as well.

Don't imprison your audience into any type of bubble because that's extremely dangerous.

Even if you think that their bubble is the threat on democracy, if you are creating another bubble and you're forcing your audience to live within the limits of that bubble, you are not providing an alternative.

You are just copy-pasting the problem.

I want to ask you about the current political and imminent legal threats to the work that you do.

On the night of May 13th, a new law was introduced to the Hungarian parliament called On Transparency in the Public Sphere.

What would this law do if it's passed?

How would it affect partisan?

So, the law which was submitted to the parliament grants the Hungarian government sweeping powers to designate NGOs and media organizations as threats to the national sovereignty with virtually no legal or objective criteria.

Once an organization is listed, receiving any foreign support, whether direct or indirect, will require a prior approval from the Hungarian anti-money laundering authority.

Without this approval, any such funding will be subject to a punit financial penalty amounting to 25 times its value.

So for example, a $100

grant can cause you $2,500 penalty.

So in practice, this mechanism serves as a de facto ban.

on foreign funding.

And not just from the US, but from any other European Union country.

So for example there are Hungarian minorities living in Romania or in Slovakia and if you would like to send any type of funding or support to any type of journalism or to any NGO it would also be taken as a kind of unwanted foreign support which is insane.

If this law passes how will it affect your journalism and the future of an opposition movement in Hungary?

It would mean that receiving this type of donations would be absolutely impossible.

And without receiving this type of donations, we cannot operate on the level we are operating right now.

So what's the mood around the office?

How are you feeling?

We are inspired because till this new legislation will be passed, we have time.

And right now we are running our biggest fundraising campaign.

And our goal is to raise as much money as possible till the legislation will be passed.

Because by that we can absolutely provide our budget for 2026.

I'm very positive that they cannot harm us in the short term.

Of course, long term is a different case, but we are fighting back every possible meanings in order to defend ourselves and sustain our operation.

There's an awful analogy that we've been talking about a lot, the boiling frog.

The idea that the frog doesn't realize it's in hot water until it's already too late and it's been cooked alive.

It's the slow creep of authoritarianism that Orban has been so successful in implementing.

We in the United States are living through something that you've already lived through.

What should American journalists be looking out for?

First of all, Orban is a chef.

That type of recipe, boiling the frog, he's a Michelin star of international politics.

I really have to emphasize, I think the situation is drastically different than than Hungarian ones.

Orban is very strategic, very focused, and patient.

Donald Trump is nothing like that.

He's way more impulsive.

He doesn't have this kind of a strategic capacity and patience for that.

You really believe that the United States and Hungary are so different that our future may not look so much like your present.

I'm still slightly confused by in what ways you see our countries as being so distinct.

Look, you are rich enough to have different type of elites, and you are rich enough to have wide movements, unions, other non-governmental organizations.

So you have this counter-power capacity against the tyranny, not like Hungary.

We don't have strong unions, we don't have a strong presence of the civil society, and we don't have that type of a strong and rich field of deojournalism, which you have, and not just on the national level, but on the local level as well.

So I think these type of things are extremely important when we are talking about how the civil society can defend itself, not just from the tyranny coming from Donald Trump, but also the tyranny coming from big tech companies, the Democratic parties, and those who are financing them.

Martin, thank you very much.

Thank you, Mika.

Thank you very much for your time and also for your attention.

I really enjoyed it.

Martin Gulyash is the founder and lead anchor of Partisan.

Okay, now for the final part of my conversation with Andrew Morantz of The New Yorker, in which we deal with the role of denial in the erosion of democracy.

There are a number of people in his story who don't support the Orban regime, but still live pretty good lives, at least when they don't think too hard about the government.

One of them put it this way to him: quote, if I admit that I live in an autocracy, this raises a lot of inconvenient questions.

Andrew, what are those inconvenient questions?

Should I vote?

Does it matter if I protest?

Does it matter if I pay taxes?

The basic civic norms kind of tacitly depend on living in a basically legitimate regime.

Do you think that there are inconvenient questions that Americans are avoiding right now?

When a political scientist told me over the phone, and this happened multiple times, the United States is not currently a democracy, I could kind of feel myself not wanting to hear those

because I don't know what that implies exactly.

Like if you're on the subway and it says, you know, we're being held for train traffic in front of us, but don't worry, you know, we'll get going again in 10 minutes.

Then you just sit there for 10 minutes and wait.

If you get the announcement over the subway that just says, we are no longer a subway and we will not be functioning as a subway in the future, goodbye.

Like, what do you do at that point?

Do you like break out of the train?

Do you like form a coalition with the other passenger?

Like, what do you do?

There's no roadmap for that.

So I don't know is the answer.

I don't know what questions I'm avoiding asking.

Should I stay in this country?

Or collectively, like, what is the future of the country if it is not a fully democratic one?

I don't know.

I'm on the media.

So just taking the media example, like

when I was reporting at Columbia,

People were telling me sensitive information and some of them were speaking to me anonymously and they were very scared because political prisoners were being disappeared all around them.

They would say to me, I don't know if I can tell you this if I tell you, how will you protect my anonymity?

And I said, What journalists say when a source says that to them, which is the same spiel I always say.

We are willing to do anything, including going to jail to protect our sources.

Those are words I've said a hundred times.

This time, when I said those words, I went,

How much do I really mean mean it?

Because this time it feels much more real.

And I decided, okay, I really actually am willing to go to jail to protect these sources.

But it was a much more real thought process.

So if that's happening for me, where I'm situated in society, there's probably a different version of that that applies to almost everyone, or at least everyone who's seeing things the way I'm seeing them.

You spoke to a lot of experts, historians, political scientists.

Not everyone felt that this moment was so exceptional.

Michael McConnell, a professor of constitutional law at Stanford, put it this way: quote, some of what Trump's attempting to do is unlawful, and he exaggerates it to make it sound even scarier than it is.

But the likely end result is that he will be checked by the courts.

He went on to tell you that, you know, Andrew Jackson had authoritarian instincts.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt fired civil servants for ideological reasons.

He attempted to pack the Supreme Court.

He violated precedent, though not necessarily the Constitution.

He won a third term and then a fourth term.

Is there something to that?

Yeah, I definitely think there's something to that for sure.

And I think the most challenging objection that I've heard and thought about is one that McConnell also raised, which is, okay, how worried about this would you be if the boundaries were being pushed by someone whose policies you actually like?

How much can we separate this is something that I think is terrible from this is something that I think is unconstitutional?

And I think that's a real legitimate challenge.

I don't think we've ever lived in a perfect democracy, certainly at no time before 1965, and even after that.

I think the Patriot Act was a real blow to our democracy.

I think droning American civilians was a real blow to our democracy.

The last thing I want to do is kind of glorify the status quo ante and say, if we could just get back to that, everything would be perfect.

So I think it's important to be clear about that.

It's also important to be clear that the underlying structures being deeply problematic laid the groundwork for the crisis, but it's not the same as the crisis.

So you can say that weird norm-shifting behavior or troubling behavior has happened before without letting anyone off the hook for the stuff they're doing now.

Stephen Levitsky, a political scientist who was a co-author of the 2018 bestseller, How Democracies Die,

was quoted in your piece.

You spoke to him about the concept of competitive authoritarianism.

He's helped kind of popularize that term and that idea.

But he pushed back on the idea that our democracy is definitely dying.

He said, quote, we're not El Salvador and we're not hungry.

We spent centuries as a society building up democratic muscle and we still have a lot of that muscle left.

I'm just waiting for someone to use it.

Levitsky, Luke and Way, all these other people I spoke to said, right now we have crossed the line into authoritarianism.

But then they said, it's not the worst form of authoritarianism, either in history or on the globe right now.

We can get back from here.

And there are examples of this.

Brazil, Poland.

And in fact, I even sort of put it to Levitsky that how democracies die is kind of the wrong metaphor, right?

Because death is permanent.

And

what you're talking about here is not permanent.

And he said, yeah, you're right.

Dying is a bad metaphor.

I guess I shouldn't have used it.

Shouldn't have named my book that.

Exactly.

I was surprised how fast he threw his own title under the bus.

But I think something can be really, really, really bad without necessarily being irreversible.

Trevor Burrus, Jr.: The Law and Justice Party in Poland, which had entrenched its power up till 2023, as you write, pushed too far, notably with a series of unpopular anti-abortion measures, and a couple years ago lost its majority.

In Brazil, Bolsonaro tried to rig his own re-election, but he failed, and he's soon going to stand trial for conspiracy to overthrow the government.

So they survived.

With all the caveats of

comparisons and analogies, are there lessons that we can draw?

I think the comparison is it's never over.

What's the civic muscle?

What's the democratic muscle that Levitsky is referring to?

It's a lot of things.

It's popular movements.

It's having an opposition that is not feckless and that's actually willing to offer something that people want to vote for.

It's institutions like the one Levitsky works at, which is Harvard University.

I don't want to be out here saying, you know, Harvard University is the heart and soul of the resistance,

but the way that Harvard responded to the onslaught from Trump was substantively different than the way Columbia did.

The way that Paul Weiss, the big law firm, caved to the Trump administration was very different than law firms like Jenrin Block and Wilmer Hale that decided to fight him in court.

From where I sit, the saviors of democracy are not going to be white shoe law firms and Ivy League schools and the Supreme Court and norms and institutions.

That's sort of not my model of how democracy works, but it comes from all corners, and I don't think you can count any part of it out.

When someone like Levitsky talks about civic muscle, that's the kind of thing he's talking about.

We have a long, uninterrupted tradition of having presidential elections every four years.

We've never not had one.

We've never had a military coup.

We've never had tanks in the streets.

We had January 6th.

That was the closest we've come since the Civil War, right?

And that kind of stuff matters.

Those habits matter a lot.

I don't think we're totally cooked yet.

I just think we're in a lot of trouble.

Andrew, thank you very much.

Thank you.

I don't want to thank you for saying that, actually, but I have to.

It's the tradition.

We're not totally cooked.

Isn't that good news?

It is good news, but it was half-assed good news at the end of a lot of bad news.

Yep, that's all I can deliver right now.

Andrew Morantz is a staff writer at The New Yorker and author of the article, Is It Happening Here?

Coming up, the mythical 3.5% rule of resistance movements.

This is on the media.

On the Media is supported by Hims and Hers.

If you're someone who values choice in your money, your goals, and your future, then you know how frustrating traditional healthcare can be.

One size fits all treatments, preset dosages, zero flexibility.

It's like trying to budget with a fixed expense you didn't even choose.

But now, there's another way, with HIMS and Hers.

HIMS and Hers is reimagining healthcare with you in mind.

They offer access to personalized care for weight loss, hair loss, sexual health, and mental health, because your goals, your biology, and your lifestyle are anything but average.

No membership fees, no surprise fees, just transparent pricing and real care that you can access from anywhere.

Feel like your best self thanks to quality, convenient care through HIMS and HERS.

Start your free online visit today at HIMS.com slash OTM.

That's HIMS.com/slash OTM to find your personalized treatment options.

Not available everywhere.

Prescription products require provider consultation.

See website for full details, important safety information, and restrictions.

What?

Oh, my goodness.

Oh, my gosh.

Wow.

Oh, my God.

Radiolab.

Whoa.

Adventures on the edge of what we think we know.

This is on the media.

I'm Michael Loinger.

I was mulling over my interview with Andrew Morantz when I began watching Andor Season 2, the Star Wars spin-off show on Disney Plus.

I know that resistance to authoritarianism is pretty much the main theme of Andor and Star Wars broadly, but I was particularly impressed by one allegory from the latest season.

Some moderate spoilers ahead.

Season 2 kicks off with a cartoonishly evil boardroom meeting, featuring the Galactic Empire's most cunning fascists as they hatch a covert plan to further consolidate power.

Their target, Gorman, a peaceful planet home to calcite, a rare mineral needed to advance the Emperor's secret agenda.

Deep substrate foliated calcite.

Now, we will have to control Gorman with a hand firm enough to silence any resistance.

How to extract calcite from Gorman's core, rendering the planet unstable and unlivable without a revolt from the locals?

Our villain Deedre Miro, an Empire intelligence officer, has a plan.

Propaganda will only get you so far.

You need a radical insurgency you can count on.

You need Gorman rebels you can depend on to do the wrong thing.

And so, under Miro's leadership, the Empire quietly encourages the growth of the Gourman resistance, letting it recruit and hold meetings and arm itself with stolen Imperial weapons, culminating in a packed protest outside the Empire's Gourmin headquarters.

The peaceful Gore protesters have no idea that they've been lured into a trap.

Things start to turn ugly when Imperial security forces are sent into the crowd of protesters to provoke them.

A rooftop sniper is then ordered to deliberately shoot one of his own men.

An Empire Grunt working his way through the mob.

Get him out of here!

The troops think that they've been attacked by the gore and open fire.

Open fire!

And then a small group of armed rebels fire back.

Meanwhile, journalists approved by the Empire are on the scene to film the bloodbath, piping the regime's narrative into TV sets across the galaxy.

A justification for even more repression and cover for the Calcite mining mission.

Questions are being asked about how an insurrection of this scale could be mounted without the aid and support of outside rebel assistance.

In the days to come, we're sure to learn a great deal more about what happened here today and the price we'll pay for our own safety.

The show invites us to wonder whether a strictly non-violent stance would have worked better for the Gorman rebels, or whether their puny, isolated movement ever stood a chance at all.

Back on Earth, scholars have applied similar questions to real-world resistance movements, both successes and failures, producing a snappy statistic that's gone viral on social media in recent months.

Everybody's heard this 3.5% figure that's going around.

3.5% is needed in this country to enact real social change.

Standing up to authoritarianism, it takes about 3.5% of the population.

The 3.5% rule is based on the research that Erica Chenoweth and I conducted back in 2010.

Maria J.

Steffen is a political scientist and co-author of Why Civil Resistance Works.

She told me that her and Erica's study examined all known resistance campaigns over the last century to see whether violent or non-violent tactics were more effective.

The major finding was that non-violent campaigns, which relied on protests, boycotts, strikes, et cetera, succeeded twice as often as violent campaigns due to something known as mass diverse participation, which is where that 3.5% comes in.

Exactly.

No government has been able to stay in power when 3.5% of the population has engaged in active protest.

You published an article this week in Just Security called Big Tents and Collective Action Can Defeat Authoritarianism.

And you cite some more recent successful pro-democracy campaigns, like the one in Brazil.

The former Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro has been banned from running for public office until 2030.

In South Korea, South Korea's constitutional court ruled unanimously to uphold the impeachment of President Junsuk Yule.

In Serbia, Serbian Prime Minister Milos Vucevic resigned following weeks of massive anti-corruption protests.

When you say that a broad, diverse coalition is essential to chipping away at regime power, can you give some examples of key pillars of society that have gotten involved in resistance movements that ultimately succeeded?

Most recently, you look at the key roles played by different pillars in Brazil, for example.

So you had a broad front that brought together business leaders, Catholic and evangelical faith leaders who publicly condemned the totalitarianism of the Bolsonaro regime and eventually called for his impeachment.

And then when Bolsonaro attempted to overturn the results of the election and launch a coup in early 2023, important pillars like the Episcopal Conference, the Conference of Catholic Bishops, vehemently denounced the attack on democracy and the rule of law.

Similarly, you look at the case of South Korea, where late last year, President Yoon declared martial law.

He accused the opposition of being infiltrated by North Korean spies, tried to prevent the members of parliament from meeting and convening.

You had a mass mobilization in South Korea.

Not only the general public, youth, civic organizations, but another powerful pillar, the South Korean Confederation of Trade Unions, announced that they were going to launch an indefinite general strike until martial law was lifted.

The president was impeached and the country is on the pathway to turning things around.

So these are just a few examples of critical pillars like faith, like unions, like the business sector that have played a key role in helping to reverse democratic backsliding.

Yeah, it was also trade unions and shipyard workers who played an important role in the Polish solidarity movement in the 1980s.

Also in the 1980s, the people power movement in the Philippines.

Tonight, as Mr.

Marcos steals himself for a life in exile, people power has taken over his beloved Malakan Yang.

This one's really interesting because the resistance movement successfully targeted security forces.

Tell us a little bit about that.

The research shows that when members of the security forces refuse to obey orders to shoot at protesters or to engage in repression, that that tends to signify the end of autocratic regimes.

So you mentioned the case of the Philippines, where there was mass mobilization by all segments of the Filipino society in response to the repression and corruption of the Marcos regime.

You had Catholic leaders using the national radio to encourage people to follow their consciences and work for human rights and freedoms.

You had Catholic nuns who were out on the streets kneeling and saying the rosary.

And when they confronted the security forces in the streets and the security forces saw who they were being asked to repress, they refused to go along with orders to shoot at the protesters.

And not only that, in the Philippines, entire units of the security forces defected to the side of the pro-democracy opposition, which was vital to the success of the pro-democracy movement.

So the security pillar is really very important.

On one hand, protests, civil resistance feed into themselves.

They help attract new people to the movement.

Often these movements require some kind of righteous narrative to bring people in.

On the other hand, we saw, I mean, just using the campaign to boycott Tesla, which was, I think, it's fair to say highly successful.

It helped push Elon Musk out of an active role in Doge.

It also provided firepower to our current administration, which wanted to cast this largely peaceful protest movement as being violent, pointing to, you know, the vandals who are firebombing Tesla dealerships and attacking cars and the like.

This led to non-stop coverage from Fox News and other right-wing outlets.

We just found out another dealership in Oregon was just shot.

Police report that this Tesla dealership was hit by multiple gunshot rounds overnight.

They just charged an Albuquerque man in connection with firebombing a Tesla dealership.

So the DOJ means it.

This is a tried and true tactic of autocrats around the world is to take any form of violence vandalism, even if it's in the tiny minority of actions

and use it to discredit the protesters.

One thing I would say is that the Tesla takedown organizers have been explicit in their commitment to nonviolence.

They've denounced acts of vandalism.

Those engaging in acts of vandalism are not endorsed by the movement itself.

Your 3.5% rule has caught on as a kind of shorthand rule of thumb for communicating the idea that nonviolent civil resistance can and has worked throughout history.

But of course, more modern regimes are also studying this history.

They also understand these tactics.

And in fact, you've found that violent and non-violent resistance are less successful than they used to be.

Yeah, that's right.

It's in part due to the fact that authoritarian regimes are adapting their repressive technologies.

You know, they're not just relying on brutal force, they're using surveillance.

That is making it more difficult for these campaigns to gain ground, gain support.

On the other hand, we've observed that movements themselves have exhibited weaknesses.

So the average size of nonviolent campaigns has shrunk considerably, and that has meant that fewer people have been willing to join.

But at the same time, these are iterative campaigns.

These authoritarian regimes learn, adapt, and so too do activists and movements.

They learn how to organize around repression.

What would you say to listeners who are

frightened about the current direction of the United States, but feel

powerless, feel that as an individual, they have no agency.

I mean, I understand why many people across this country are feeling the fear, the disorientation, because that's the goal of this regime.

That's the goal of autocrats, is to overwhelm us, to make us feel like we are powerless to bring about change.

And I would just say that when you look around the world, even in the face of some of the most brutal forms of tyranny that have been successfully challenged by people who organize and avail themselves of a wide range of tactics and exert their power, often in joyful, humorous ways to go against the fear and the darkness of these regimes.

Their ability to prevail time and time again is, I think, what offers hope in what is otherwise some dark times.

Maria, thank thank you very much.

Thank you.

Maria J.

Steffen is the co-lead of the Horizons Project and co-author of the book Why Civil Resistance Works.

That's it for this week's show.

On the Media is produced by Molly Rosen, Rebecca Clark Callender, and Candice Wong.

Our technical director is Jennifer Munson with engineering from Jared Paul.

Eloise Blondio is our senior producer and our executive producer is Katia Rogers.

On On the media is a production of WNYC Studios.

Brooke Gladstone will 100% be back next week.

I'm Micah Loewinger.